DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

12A) of\nsection 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account\nmaintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was\ninserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic\nrecord" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000.\nUnder Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been\ndefined to include data, record or data

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

ab-intio as it was passed without proper assumption of Jurisdiction and application of mind. B R Hospital and Research Institute vs. ITO 2. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 without appreciating that exemption available u/s 11 of the Act is dully allowable

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

12A) of\nsection 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account\nmaintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was\ninserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic\nrecord\" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000.\nUnder Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been\ndefined to include data, record or data

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

ab-initio. 3. That since section 12A and section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 operates separately hence section 12A approval rejection can not ipso facto apply to rejection for section 80G approval. 4. That the CITY (E) is wrong in holding that an application under Form No.10G in absence of any registration u/s 12A does not meet

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

ab-initio. 3. That since section 12A and section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 operates separately hence section 12A approval rejection can not ipso facto apply to rejection for section 80G approval. 4. That the CITY (E) is wrong in holding that an application under Form No.10G in absence of any registration u/s 12A does not meet

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 1,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

ab) the person in receipt of the income has made an application for registration of the trust or institution, in a case where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under section 12AA or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

ab) the person in receipt of the income has made an application for registration of the trust or institution, in a case where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under section 12AA or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance

ASHISH LEGAL FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purpose

Delay is condoned\nand appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both\nappeals:-\n1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred on facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law cancelling the registration\nunder section 12AB without affording adequate opportunity to the\nappellant to present the case and without considering

ASHISH LEGAL FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purpose

Delay is condoned\nand appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both\nappeals:-\n1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred on facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law cancelling the registration\nunder section 12AB without affording adequate opportunity to the\nappellant to present the case and without considering

HARYANA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION,HARYANA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh.S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Haryana Football Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Association Chandigarh C-1002, Essal Tower Pilot Court 10Th Floor Gurgaon Haryana Pan No.Aaaah3747G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. No service of notices and no copy of the impugned order has been served and the appellant was unknown to the proceedings. 2. The impugned order has been passed against the appellant is in contradiction with